From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] Improvements for random.h/archrandom.h Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 18:20:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20191111172006.GC2799@zn.tnic> References: <20191106141308.30535-1-rth@twiddle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191106141308.30535-1-rth@twiddle.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Richard Henderson Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, x86@kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:12:58PM +0100, Richard Henderson wrote: > During patch review for an addition of archrandom.h for arm64, it was > suggeted that the arch_random_get_* functions should be marked __must_check. > Which does sound like a good idea, since the by-reference integer output > may be uninitialized when the boolean result is false. > > In addition, it turns out that arch_has_random() and arch_has_random_seed() > are not used, and not easy to support for arm64. Rather than cobble > something together that would not be testable, remove the interfaces > against some future accidental use. > > In addition, I noticed a few other minor inconsistencies between the > different architectures, e.g. powerpc isn't using bool. > > Change since v1: > * Remove arch_has_random, arch_has_random_seed. > > > r~ > > > Richard Henderson (10): > x86: Remove arch_has_random, arch_has_random_seed > powerpc: Remove arch_has_random, arch_has_random_seed > s390: Remove arch_has_random, arch_has_random_seed > linux/random.h: Remove arch_has_random, arch_has_random_seed > linux/random.h: Use false with bool > linux/random.h: Mark CONFIG_ARCH_RANDOM functions __must_check > x86: Mark archrandom.h functions __must_check > powerpc: Use bool in archrandom.h > powerpc: Mark archrandom.h functions __must_check > s390x: Mark archrandom.h functions __must_check > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/archrandom.h | 27 +++++++++----------------- > arch/s390/include/asm/archrandom.h | 20 ++++--------------- > arch/x86/include/asm/archrandom.h | 28 ++++++++++++--------------- > include/linux/random.h | 24 ++++++++--------------- > 4 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) > > -- They look good to me. Is anyone going to take them or should I though the tip tree? Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:52422 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726845AbfKKRUK (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Nov 2019 12:20:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 18:20:06 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] Improvements for random.h/archrandom.h Message-ID: <20191111172006.GC2799@zn.tnic> References: <20191106141308.30535-1-rth@twiddle.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191106141308.30535-1-rth@twiddle.net> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Richard Henderson Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Message-ID: <20191111172006.LOqrZHWET0L1k7SE0Xo193a8QBV3XxBOerpMyXcekwg@z> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:12:58PM +0100, Richard Henderson wrote: > During patch review for an addition of archrandom.h for arm64, it was > suggeted that the arch_random_get_* functions should be marked __must_check. > Which does sound like a good idea, since the by-reference integer output > may be uninitialized when the boolean result is false. > > In addition, it turns out that arch_has_random() and arch_has_random_seed() > are not used, and not easy to support for arm64. Rather than cobble > something together that would not be testable, remove the interfaces > against some future accidental use. > > In addition, I noticed a few other minor inconsistencies between the > different architectures, e.g. powerpc isn't using bool. > > Change since v1: > * Remove arch_has_random, arch_has_random_seed. > > > r~ > > > Richard Henderson (10): > x86: Remove arch_has_random, arch_has_random_seed > powerpc: Remove arch_has_random, arch_has_random_seed > s390: Remove arch_has_random, arch_has_random_seed > linux/random.h: Remove arch_has_random, arch_has_random_seed > linux/random.h: Use false with bool > linux/random.h: Mark CONFIG_ARCH_RANDOM functions __must_check > x86: Mark archrandom.h functions __must_check > powerpc: Use bool in archrandom.h > powerpc: Mark archrandom.h functions __must_check > s390x: Mark archrandom.h functions __must_check > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/archrandom.h | 27 +++++++++----------------- > arch/s390/include/asm/archrandom.h | 20 ++++--------------- > arch/x86/include/asm/archrandom.h | 28 ++++++++++++--------------- > include/linux/random.h | 24 ++++++++--------------- > 4 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) > > -- They look good to me. Is anyone going to take them or should I though the tip tree? Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette